Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.

Case Overview: Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc. (IPR2025-00698)

Parties and technology. Although captioned as a "litigation," IPR2025-00698 is an inter partes review pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — the defendant-side validity attack in a broader patent war over white-filament LED light bulbs. The petitioners are Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting (the operating company that licenses/markets the GE Lighting brand), joined by its supply-chain partners Elong International USA Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. (a Chinese LED-bulb manufacturer and its U.S. subsidiary) — all practicing operating companies. The patent owner is Feit Electric Company, Inc., a California-based lighting and smart-home brand (headquartered in Los Angeles, selling at Home Depot and Ace Hardware) and a practicing entity, not an NPE, per the Stanford NPE Litigation Database and RPX/Unified Patents classifications. Feit launched white-filament decorative bulbs in August 2022 and in 2024 sued LEDVANCE (first action) and Savant (second action, Feit Electric Co. v. Savant Techs. LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00473-BMB, N.D. Ohio, filed Mar. 13, 2024, Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan), alleging that GE-branded "Pearl Filament" bulbs (e.g., model nos. LED5DST19M/SW9GCQWF-2T) infringe because their filaments are coated with a white light-diffusing layer rather than the conventional yellow phosphor. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 8,614,539, "Wavelength Conversion Component with Scattering Particles" (issued Dec. 24, 2013; priority Oct. 2010; originally assigned to Intematix Corp., now Feit): the claims require a phosphor-containing wavelength-conversion component plus a light-scattering material (e.g., TiO₂) whose average particle size is selected so it scatters blue excitation light (≥440 nm) at least twice as much as phosphor-generated light — the technical feature that gives the filament a clean white "off-state" appearance (claims 1–11, 18–20, 23–25, 28 challenged; Feit's amended complaint added the '539 alongside the related '678 patent, and its infringement contentions map claim 1 onto the accused GE Pearl Filament products).

Procedural posture. The petition was filed March 6, 2025 (IPR2025-00698); Feit's Preliminary Response (July 15, 2025, backed by an E. Fred Schubert declaration and § 325(d)/secondary-indicia arguments) failed to head off review, and the Board granted institution on October 6, 2025 under § 314, challenging two obviousness grounds: (1) claims over Krummacher (US 2008/0079015), Shimizu (US 6,069,440/5,998,925), and Stokes (US 6,791,259); and (2) claims 18 and 28 over Hussell (US 2010/0124243), Krummacher, Stokes, and Van Woudenberg. The panel — originally APJs Wood, Cherry, Giannetti, and Brennan — was changed November 7, 2025, with APJ Scott B. Howard replacing APJ Thomas L. Giannetti (current panel: Wood, Cherry, Howard). The case is on a full trial track: Patent Owner's Response (Dec. 30, 2025), Petitioners' Reply (Apr. 1, 2026), Sur-reply (May 13, 2026), and an Order Setting Oral Argument (June 8, 2026) after Feit's request; the Final Written Decision remains pending (due approximately October 2026, 12 months post-institution). Venue in the traditional sense sits with the stayed N.D. Ohio case (Judge Brennan, who stayed the action April 1, 2025 pending the IPRs — the historic home of GE Lighting in East Cleveland), while the PTAB itself is a congressionally created tribunal sitting in Alexandria with nationwide effect; a successful IPR would moot or gut the infringement case on the challenged claims.

Why it matters. This is a textbook coordinated, supply-chain defense: the accused U.S. brand (Savant/GE Lighting) and its Asian manufacturers (Longstar/Elong) jointly attacked Feit's white-filament portfolio in parallel proceedings — IPR2024-01357 and IPR2025-00260 against the related '678 patent (the latter surviving Feit's Director-review request for discretionary denial, which was denied) — and the Board's institution here rejected Feit's arguments that the cited art was cumulative of prosecution (McNulty/Reeh) and that secondary indicia (Home Depot sales, consumer praise, pricing premiums for white vs. yellow filament bulbs) compelled a different outcome. The dispute sits at a commercially hot intersection: white-filament LED bulbs are a fast-growing decorative-lighting segment where the off-state aesthetic is the key differentiator, Feit is an operating company enforcing patents it acquired from LED-materials pioneer Intematix (seeking injunctions, enhanced damages, and fees for alleged willful infringement), and the outcome will shape whether competitors and their offshore suppliers can freely sell white-filament products or must license Feit. Sourcing note: docket events, panel composition, institution date, and grounds are verified via USPTO PTAB documents (Papers 10–22), the GreyB/IP Verse case docket, Unified Patents' PTAB portal, and RPX's docket mirror; the stay order and Judge Brennan assignment come from N.D. Ohio docket entries (Dkt. 46–47, Apr. 1, 2025); the LEDVANCE first-action case number is not confirmed in my sources and is omitted rather than guessed.

Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting — Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Scope note

The case metadata in this matter is IPR2025-00698, a PTAB inter partes review filed by Savant/GE Lighting, Elong, and Longstar against Feit Electric challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,614,539 (the "'539 patent"). The "patent infringement litigation" underlying that IPR is Feit Electric Company, Inc. v. Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting, No. 1:24-cv-00473-BMB (N.D. Ohio) — a district court case in which Feit is the plaintiff/patent owner and Savant is the defendant/accused infringer (the reverse of the IPR caption). That district court action asserted Feit's white-LED-filament patents, including the '539 patent, against Savant's GE-branded "Pearl Filament" bulbs. This summary covers the district court case chronologically and then the parallel IPRs.

---

I. Background / Feit's enforcement campaign

• Feit publicly announced it owned patents covering the yellow phosphor material used on LED filaments and warned retailers and manufacturers (including Savant/GE) before suing. Feit press release, 2024-03-13 (via feit.com; LEDInside 2024-03-15; Semiconductor Today 2024-03-14).
• The Savant suit was Feit's second white-filament enforcement action; the first was against LEDVANCE, No. 5:24-cv-00031 (E.D. Ky., filed 2024-02-02) (per PTACTS stipulation email, 2025-01-20).

---

II. District Court Litigation — No. 1:24-cv-00473-BMB (N.D. Ohio)

Filing and initial pleadings

• 2024-03-13 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Feit asserted a single count of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 (the "'678 patent"), attached as Exhibit A. Filing fee paid; AO120 patent report filed (Dkt. 3); corporate disclosure (Dkt. 2); summons issued (Dkt. 4). Case assigned to Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan; identified as subject to the Local Patent Rules; Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker designated for referral. (Justia docket; Stanford NPE Litigation Database, case 285872.)
• 2024-03-14 — Service. Personal service on Savant (Dkt. 6, filed 2024-03-15).
• 2024-05-03 — Answer posture. Savant filed an unopposed motion for leave to move/plead/respond (Dkt. 7) and a motion for leave to file instanter its Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. 8), suggesting a timing dispute over the initial answer deadline. (Justia docket.) No counterclaims are identified in the available docket excerpts.

Case management / pre-trial schedule

• 2024-06-25 — Case Management Conference; 2024-06-26 — Case Management Order (Dkt. 19). Complex track; detailed Local Patent Rule schedule through claim construction, including infringement contentions (2024-05-28), invalidity/unenforceability contentions (2024-09-04), and a claim construction hearing initially set for 2025-02-26. (Dkt. 19-1, PTACTS.)

Amendment to add the '539 patent

• 2024-09-20 — Amended Complaint (Dkt. 27). Feit added infringement allegations of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,614,539 ("Wavelength Conversion Component with Scattering Particles," originally Intematix Corp., now Feit). (Joint Motion to Amend CMO, PTACTS.)
• 2024-09-24 — Contingent motion for leave to amend (Dkt. 30); Savant opposed on 2024-10-08 (Dkt. 35).
• 2024-10-01 — Joint motion to amend the CMO (Dkt. 34).
• 2024-12-12 — Court orders. The court granted the CMO amendment and denied as moot Feit's leave-to-amend motion because the amended complaint had been filed within the CMO deadline. (Joint Motion, PTACTS.)
• 2024-12-17 — Savant's Answer to the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 41).

Claim construction (Markman) stage

• 2025-01-03 — Joint request to extend pre-Markman deadlines for the newly added '539 patent; the claim construction hearing was then set for 2025-03-11. (PTACTS filing.)
• Claim construction exchanges proceeded under the Local Patent Rules: preliminary/final identifications of terms (e.g., final ID of claim terms for the '539 patent dated 2025-01-17), final claim constructions (2025-02-25), and Savant's opening claim construction brief (docket entry ~45, listed as 2025-03-13 in the IPR record). (ipverse IPR2025-00698 case page.)
• Markman outcome: A district court "Memo Opinion + Order (Claim Construction) [ECF 81]" exists and was filed 2026-05-13 as an exhibit by Feit (patent owner) in IPR2025-00698. (ipverse/gaeflex IPR docket listings.) ⚠️ I could not retrieve the substance of that order, and its docket number/date is slightly inconsistent with an August 2025 administrative closure (see below), so the specific constructions adopted are not verified from available sources.

Stay pending IPR

• 2025-04-01 — Renewed motion to stay GRANTED. Savant filed a renewed motion to stay pending resolution of inter partes review (Dkt. 46); Feit opposed certain bases but stated it did not oppose a stay "to the extent the Court determines a stay is warranted" (Dkt. 47). Judge Brennan granted the stay and ordered Feit to file a status report within five business days of the conclusion of the USPTO proceedings, warning that failure to comply "may result in dismissal." (NEF order, PTACTS, 2025-04-01.)

Disposition / present posture

• 2025-08-14 — Statistical closing. Patexia lists the termination date as 2025-08-14 with status "Statistical Closing"; Unified Patents lists the case as "Closed" (filed 2024-03-12/13). (Patexia; Unified Patents portal.)
• No trial, verdict, JMOL, or fee determination occurred. The case was stayed pending the IPRs and administratively/statistically closed; there is no evidence in the available record of a merits judgment, settlement stipulation, or appeal. The effective final disposition to date is a stay-with-closure pending the PTAB proceedings.

---

III. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect

Several IPRs were filed by the accused infringers against Feit's white-filament patents; the district court stay was entered in reliance on these proceedings:

IPR2024-01357 (petitioners: Savant and LEDVANCE; filed 2024)

• On 2025-01-20, petitioners Savant and LEDVANCE filed a stipulation in the IPR record that if the IPR was instituted on the grounds presented, they would not pursue those same grounds in their parallel district court litigations with Feit (expressly referencing the E.D. Ky. LEDVANCE case and the N.D. Ohio Savant case). (PTACTS stipulation email, 2025-01-20.)

IPR2025-00260 (petitioners: Savant/GE Lighting, Elong, Longstar; filed 2024-12-09) — challenges the '678 patent

• Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,604,678 (claims 11–14) (Patexia document listing).
• 2025-06-23 — Institution granted (Trial Instituted per ex parte/ai-lab tracker). Press coverage (inside.lighting, 2025-03-10) confirms PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the 16 challenged claims of the '678 patent is unpatentable — the IPR the district court stay was tied to.

IPR2025-00258 (petitioners: Elong International USA Inc. and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd.)

• Referenced in the same 2025-01-20 stipulation email (counsel for Elong/Longstar); details of the challenged patent and institution status are not verified from sources available to me.

IPR2025-00698 (petitioners: Savant/GE Lighting, Elong, Longstar; filed 2025-03-06) — challenges the '539 patent (the instant case)

• 2025-03-06 — Petition filed challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,614,539.
• 2025-07-15 — Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Paper 10), supported by the declaration of E. Fred Schubert (Exs. 2001–2002 and numerous technical exhibits). (gaeflex/docketupdate; ipverse.)
• 2025-10-06 — Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (Paper ~12), with Scheduling Order same day. (ipverse; Unified Patents; gaeflex.)
• 2025-11-07 — Panel Change Order (Paper 13). The panel has included Judges Thomas L. Giannetti, Benjamin D. M. Wood, and Kevin W. Cherry (Unified Patents caselist; ex parte tracker).
• 2025-12-30 — Patent Owner's Response (Paper 14).
• 2026-01/02 — Petitioner discovery: Notices of deposition of E. Fred Schubert (2026-01-28; revised 2026-02-20).
• 2026-03-24 — Joint stipulation modifying Due Dates 2 & 3; 2026-04-01 — Petitioners' Reply in Support of the Petition (Paper 21) with ~50 new exhibits; 2026-04-08 — PO objections to reply evidence; 2026-04-09 — Amended Scheduling Order (oral argument date updated); 2026-05-13 — Patent Owner's Sur-Reply (which also lodged the district court's claim construction order, ECF 81, as an exhibit).
• 2026-05-27 — Patent Owner's request for oral argument; 2026-06-08 — Board order setting oral argument under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70.
• Status as of 2026-09-01: Trial Instituted / pending — no Final Written Decision has issued. (ipverse; Unified Patents.)

Effect of the IPRs on the litigation

• The 2025-04-01 district court stay was granted on the strength of the pending IPR challenges (including IPR2025-00698), and the court conditioned the case's continued viability on a status report after the PTAB concludes. The N.D. Ohio case was then statistically closed (2025-08-14) without any merits adjudication. The parties are clearly litigating validity in parallel at the PTAB while the district court action sits stayed/closed.

---

IV. Bottom line

• No merits outcome (no trial/verdict/JMOL) in the district court. The infringement case was stayed on 2025-04-01 pending IPR and administratively closed on 2025-08-14; no final judgment, settlement, or appeal has been identified.
• The decisive active forum is the PTAB. IPR2025-00698 (the '539 patent) was instituted on 2025-10-06, briefing is complete through sur-reply (2026-05-13), oral argument is scheduled (order of 2026-06-08), and a Final Written Decision is pending — which will drive the final outcome of the stayed district court case (Feit was ordered to report within five business days of the USPTO's conclusion, on pain of dismissal).

Key sources

• Justia docket for 1:2024cv00473 (N.D. Ohio) — complaint, service, answer filings, Judge Brennan assignment.
• PTACTS filings (IPR2024-01357 record): CMO Dkt. 19-1 (2024-06-26); joint motion to amend CMO (2025-01-03); NEF order granting stay (2025-04-01); stipulation email (2025-01-20).
• Feit press release, "Feit Electric Announces Second Patent Enforcement Action…" (2024-03-13); LEDInside (2024-03-15); inside.lighting (2024-03-14 and 2025-03-10).
• ipverse.greyb.com and gaeflex/docketupdate IPR2025-00698 docket pages; Unified Patents PTAB and litigation portals; Patexia case summary (termination 2025-08-14); ex parte/ai-lab tracker; Stanford NPE Litigation Database.

Unverified items (flagged): the substance of the district court's claim construction order (ECF 81); the exact procedural basis of the 2025-08-14 statistical closing (e.g., administrative closure vs. stipulated dismissal); details of IPR2025-00258; and the institution status of IPR2024-01357. These should be confirmed against PACER before relying on them in a filing.

Counsel of Record for the Petitioners ("Plaintiffs") — IPR2025-00698

A threshold framing note. IPR2025-00698 is an inter partes review before the PTAB, not a district-court infringement action. The parties the case metadata labels "plaintiff(s)" — Savant Technologies LLC d/b/a GE Lighting, GE Lighting, Elong International USA Inc., and Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co., Ltd. — are the petitioners (the validity challengers); Feit Electric is the patent owner. (In the stayed parallel district-court case, Feit Electric Co. v. Savant Techs. LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00473-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the roles are inverted: Feit is the plaintiff and Savant is the defendant.) The counsel of record for the petitioners before the PTAB, per the petition's mandatory notices (Paper 1), the docketed designation notice, and the PTAB service lists, are all from Radulescu LLP (New York):

---

1. David C. Radulescu, Ph.D. — Lead Counsel

• Role: Lead counsel for petitioners (USPTO Reg. No. 36,250); signed the petition and the March 6, 2025 notice designating backup counsel. Sources: Petition, IPR2025-00698, Paper 1 (PTACTS/USPTO doc. 1557529); "Petitioners' Notice of Intent to Designate Provisionally-Recognized PTAB Attorney Etai Lahav as Back-Up Counsel," dated Mar. 6, 2025 (PTACTS doc., stating "David C. Radulescu, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 36,250) will act as lead counsel in this proceeding").
• Firm/Location: Radulescu LLP, 5 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10001 (david@radip.com; 646-502-5957). Sources: radip.com; huski.ai profile.
• Experience: Founder of Radulescu LLP; per firm bio, has handled more cases involving semiconductor/LED devices than any other U.S. litigator. Notable matters: lead counsel for Cree in The Fox Group v. Cree (E.D. Va.; summary judgment of invalidity affirmed by the Federal Circuit), for Seoul Semiconductor (E.D. Tex. and N.D. Cal. LED disputes, including against Feit's counsel's clients), for Finisar, and for respondents/complainants in multiple ITC § 337 investigations (e.g., Inv. No. 337-TA-570). Source: radip.com/team/david-c-radulescu-ph-d/.

2. Etai Lahav — Back-Up Counsel

• Role: Back-up counsel; designated on the filing date via the Petitioners' Notice of Intent to Designate a provisionally-recognized PTAB attorney as back-up counsel (37 CFR § 42.10(c)(2)), accompanied by his declaration (EX1121). Source: PTACTS doc. dated Mar. 6, 2025 (artifact DuklouDwOqdgnaX5OiTadwqkq0TQ6pEMaBVjORTfvmbSl5jDxwudl5c).
• Firm/Location: Partner, Radulescu LLP, 5 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10001 (etai@radip.com; 646-502-5950). Cardozo School of Law 2006; NY-licensed 2007; Super Lawyers 2022–2025. Sources: radip.com/team/etai-lahav/; superlawyers.com profile; Law360 attorney page.
• Experience: Deep PTAB and LED-litigation record: counsel for SETi in seven IPRs on UV-LED patents (incl. IPR2022-0780/-0781, Lite-On v. SETi), for Seoul Semiconductor as patent owner in IPR2020-0836 (Satco v. Seoul Semi), for petitioner WAC Lighting in seven IPRs against Philips (IPR2015-1287 et seq.), for patent owner Bridgelux in IPR2018-1482–1485, and in district-court LED cases (Seoul Semi v. Feit, C.D. Cal.; SETi v. Lite-On, W.D. Tex.; Finisar v. Capella, N.D. Cal.). Sources: radip.com; declaration in IPR2020-00836 (PTACTS).

3. Andrew S. Brown — Of Counsel (service-list counsel)

• Role: Of counsel on the PTAB service list for the petitioners in this and the related '678-patent IPRs (IPR2024-01357, IPR2025-00258/00260); appears as a signatory/service contact on petitioner filings ("Andrew S. Brown, Radulescu LLP, Of Counsel, 212-713-0356, andy@radip.com"). Sources: service certification in Feit's Patent Owner Preliminary Response, IPR2025-00698, dated Apr. 15, 2025 (PTACTS artifact 65Z2Ptsx...; "David C. Radulescu, Ph.D., david@radip.com, Etai Lahav, etai@radip.com, Andrew S. Brown, andy@radip.com, Savant_IPR_Service@radip.com"); email/service list in IPR2024-01357 (PTACTS artifact xyKdoOFhCivm78QwvslsD-yiIlf5LLE7JE_FVrplTq65pYVVu6qKEDk).
• Firm/Location: Radulescu LLP, New York, NY.
• Experience: LED-industry patent litigator at Radulescu LLP; has worked alongside Radulescu and Lahav on the firm's LED/lighting docket (including the GE Lighting/Savant IPRs against Feit). Specific notable prior cases are not separately sourced beyond his firm affiliation.

---

Additional notes and verification limits

• No in-house counsel or local counsel of record: PTAB practice requires only lead and backup counsel under 37 CFR § 42.10; all designated counsel are outside counsel at Radulescu LLP. No in-house counsel for Savant/GE or Longstar/Elong has appeared on the PTAB filings identified. The underlying N.D. Ohio action (stayed Apr. 1, 2025) would have its own district-court appearance lists, which are outside the PTAB record and were not separately verified here.
• Related Radulescu LLP attorneys: Jonathan Auerbach and Bryon Wasserman (also Radulescu LLP, New York/Austin) appear on firm papers in related LED cases (e.g., Seoul Semiconductor v. Feit Electric, C.D. Cal., Dkt. 214), and Auerbach's email appears on some IPR2024-01357 correspondence, but neither is confirmed on the IPR2025-00698 service list or designation filings, so they are not listed as counsel of record here.
• GreyB/IP Verse docket corroboration: The IP Verse case page lists "Petitioner Counsel: Radulescu, David et al." and "Respondent Counsel: McMahon, Charles et al." (Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP represents Feit as patent owner — lead Charles M. McMahon, backup Thomas DaMario), matching the PTACTS filings above.
• No sealed filings issue: The petition and designation notices are public; no seal or non-public counsel issue affects this identification.

Bottom line: the petitioner/plaintiff-side team of record is David C. Radulescu (lead), Etai Lahav (back-up), and Andrew S. Brown (of counsel), all of Radulescu LLP, New York — the same boutique LED-litigation firm that has driven the GE Lighting/Savant validity campaign against Feit's white-filament portfolio across IPR2024-01357, IPR2025-00258, IPR2025-00260, and this proceeding.

Counsel of Record for Feit Electric Company, Inc. ("Defendant" per case metadata; Patent Owner/Respondent in the IPR)

A framing note first. Despite the metadata's plaintiff/defendant labels, IPR2025-00698 is a PTAB inter partes review: Savant Technologies/GE Lighting, Elong, and Longstar are the Petitioners, and Feit Electric is the Patent Owner/Respondent defending its '539 patent. In the stayed, parallel N.D. Ohio suit (Feit Electric Co. v. Savant Techs. LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00473-BMB), the roles are inverted — Feit is the plaintiff and Savant the defendant. The analysis below covers Feit's counsel of record in both forums.

1. IPR2025-00698 — Feit's counsel before the PTAB

Charles M. McMahon — Lead Counsel

• Firm/office: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, 71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60606 (USPTO Reg. No. 44,926; cmcmahon@beneschlaw.com).
• Experience: First-chair IP litigator who joined Benesch as a partner in May 2024 from McDermott Will & Emery; tried four patent cases (two district-court jury trials, two ITC § 337 investigations) and has handled matters in 12+ district courts, the PTAB, the ITC, the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court — including Certain Semiconductor Devices Having Layered Dummy Fill (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1342, 2023) and Werner Co. v. Louisville Ladder (W.D. Ky. 2023). B.S.E.E., Notre Dame; J.D., George Washington.
• Source: Benesch partner announcement (May 7, 2024) and firm bio; PTACTS mandatory-notice paper in IPR2025-00698 (dated Apr. 15, 2025).

Thomas M. DaMario — Back-Up Counsel

• Firm/office: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Chicago (USPTO Reg. No. 77,142; tdamario@beneschlaw.com). He was a Senior Managing Associate at filing; Benesch announced his promotion to Partner effective January 2026 (Dec. 31, 2025 announcement).
• Experience: Complex IP litigation before district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB (Internet, wireless/semiconductor, and chip-design technologies); licensed Professional Engineer with an electrical-engineering background (B.S., Univ. of Illinois; J.D., DePaul, 2017, Order of the Coif); named to Best Lawyers "Ones to Watch" (IP Litigation) 2023–2025.
• Source: Benesch bio and 2026 partner announcement; PTACTS mandatory-notice paper in IPR2025-00698.

Corroboration: GreyB/IP Verse's docket for IPR2025-00698 lists "Respondent Counsel: McMahon, Charles et al." The PTACTS-filed mandatory notices (Paper 7, Apr. 15, 2025) designate McMahon as lead and DaMario as back-up. In the related '678-patent IPRs (IPR2024-01357, IPR2025-00258/260), Feit in April 2025 moved to substitute this same Benesch pair for prior counsel Carter Arnett Bennett & Perez PLLC, stating that McMahon and DaMario "are involved with the related district court litigation and familiar with the issues surrounding the patent at issue" — confirming the continuity of the Benesch team across Feit's white-filament defense. (Whether the IPR2025-00698 notice designates additional back-up counsel beyond DaMario is not confirmable from the OCR of the filing I retrieved; only these two are verified.)

2. Underlying N.D. Ohio litigation — Feit's district-court counsel

Michael S. Weinstein — Attorney for Feit Electric Company, Inc.

• Firm/office: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, 127 Public Square, Suite 4900, Cleveland, OH 44114 (mweinstein@beneschlaw.com) — Benesch's Cleveland office sits in the N.D. Ohio, so this is effectively local/lead district-court counsel.
• Experience: Signed pleadings for Feit in Feit Electric Co. v. Savant Techs. LLC (e.g., a Sept. 20, 2024 filing) and participated in the June 25, 2024 case-management conference "on behalf of Plaintiff" (CMC order, Doc. 19-1).
• Source: RPX litigation-document mirror (Doc. signature block); N.D. Ohio CMC order filed June 26, 2024.

3. In-house counsel

Not confirmed. No Feit in-house attorney appears as counsel of record in the IPR mandatory notices or the district-court filings I retrieved. (Note: the in-house name that appears in the parallel RPX docket document — Paul T. Martin, Senior Counsel, GE Lighting, a Savant Company, East Cleveland — belongs to Savant/GE, not Feit, and should not be attributed to Feit.)

Sourcing caveats

• Docket events, designations, and signatures are drawn from USPTO PTACTS filings (mandatory notices dated Apr. 15, 2025; substitution-request emails in the related IPRs), Benesch's firm website and announcements, GreyB/IP Verse and Unified Patents PTAB portals, RPX's docket mirror, and the N.D. Ohio CMC order (Doc. 19-1) and stay order (Docs. 46–47, Apr. 1, 2025).
• I could not verify (a) whether any additional Benesch associates or a second firm serve as additional back-up counsel in IPR2025-00698, or (b) the identity of Feit's in-house counsel of record; both are flagged rather than guessed. No filings in this IPR are sealed, but the PTAB's full counsel table was partially truncated in the OCR I reviewed.